Recently, Republicans have had the spotlight put on their differing visions of how to approach foreign policy in an increasingly dangerous world. It is not a new division; it has existed throughout the 20th century. This issue is critical not just for Republicans, but for the country at large.

I’m referring primarily to the recent debate over foreign policy initiated by Governor Rick Perry of Texas. Perry has been in the news due to his actions on the border crisis and his meeting with Barack Obama, a meeting which the president felt he had to attend due to flak he was receiving over his refusal to actually visit the border. Possibly as a prelude to a presidential run in 2016, Perry has now decided to challenge Rand Paul and those who agree with him over what Perry maintains are dangerous isolationist tendencies.

Writing in last Saturday’s Washington Post, the governor accused Rand Paul of wanting America to pull up the drawbridge, which would amount to “ignoring the profound threat that the group now calling itself the Islamic State poses to the United States and the world.” In both Syria and Iraq, Perry points out that “the world is confronting an even more radicalized version of Islamic extremism than al-Qaeda.”

Paul, on the other hand, maintains that Americans need a new foreign policy approach, one in which the U.S. stays out of Syria and Iraq completely, and should not even contemplate air strikes to hem in Assad’s forces, even though that intervention would not include boots on the ground. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Paul claims that he is the rightful heir to the foreign policy espoused by Ronald Reagan, and that Reagan would have adopted the same policies that he is now advocating.

Perry finds these claims completely wrongheaded, and argues that Ronald Reagan was anything but an isolationist. Reagan saw the Soviet Union “as an existential threat to our national security and Western values,” and Perry believes it was Reagan’s engagement and tough policies that led to the final collapse of the Soviet Union. While it is true that Reagan ended the Cold War without going to war with Russia, he increased the U.S. defense budget and backed development of what the opposition called “Star Wars,”thus bleeding the Soviet system dry in their race to keep up. Reagan’s move prevented their state command economy from functioning at even a minimal level. Reagan did not just rely, as Paul writes, on “strong diplomacy and moral leadership.”

At the time, many on the left and the right argued that Reagan was wrong to treat the Soviets as adversaries, and that taking a tough stance towards them would only push them into war. Perry’s analogy seems to apply; many who oppose serious engagement with our enemies today use the trope that a tough policy means that “the neocons want a war,” when in fact, an engaged U.S. policy would prevent a war that otherwise might indeed take place. As Perry puts it, “Paul’s brand of isolationism … would compound the threat of terrorism even further.”

Paul did not wait long to answer the governor, writing his own op-ed in the pages of Politico. Calling Perry’s arguments “a fictionalized account of my foreign policy” that mischaracterized his real views, he wondered “if he’s even really read any of my policy papers.” Paul tries to make the case that he is no isolationist, preferring the term non-interventionist to describe his views. However, the difference between the two is slippery. The pre-World War II group that was called isolationists by those wanting the U.S. to take action against Hitler also complained of the same thing. They were non-interventionists, they argued, and not isolationists, because they wanted a “Fortress America” that would make U.S. defenses impregnable.

Today, Paul says, he now supports assistance to the Iraqi government including arms and intelligence, as well as technology to hinder ISIS. He does not want U.S. aid and arms to go to Islamic rebels in Syria, who he argues are allied with ISIS. This raises the question of whether or not there are actually moderate anti-jihadist rebels in Syria who are not allied with the jihadists, whom the Obama administration argues they are trying to support. At this point, I doubt that any of these anti-Assad jihadists can become our allies, because even if there are moderates, as a whole the military units are controlled by Islamists. Rand Paul, however, does not address the question at all.

Of course, Perry also opposes sending U.S. troops back to Iraq. No one advocates that, although some do argue for a small group to protect the government and to continue the training of anti-ISIS forces. Setting up a strawman and sounding like John Kerry during the Vietnam War in his testimony before Congress, Paul asks: “How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves?” And to call someone an isolationist is simply a smear — “perhaps it’s time we finally retire that pejorative.”

Is it? In the current issue of the Weekly Standard, AEI visiting fellow David Adesnik dissects Ron Paul’s foreign policy reading list that is on Paul’s website. He finds that it “consists entirely of works that blame the United States for the rise of Islamic extremism while offering solutions that verge on isolationism.” He proves as well that many of Paul’s own speeches are unreservedly isolationist, and that his arguments mirror precisely the foreign policy stance of those on the far Left.

Perry is the successful governor of one of the most economically successful states in the US and a former USAF pilot. Thus he has a record of making good decisions under high pressure. What has Rand Paul ever run? Feel free to compare your own resume to Perry's.

BTW, are you aware that we only have two or three brigades deployed to NATO?

1. Experienced chief executive of the state with perhaps the most dynamic economy in the US2. An apparently serious religious Christian 3 . a former USAF pilot who looks entirely at home aboard a Texas Ranger patrol craft on the Rio Grande

You DO realize that Assad is fighting OUR enemies? Don't you? Or does that not matter if it means we can spend blood and treasure to keep muslims from killing muslims?

Perry, an ex-Democrat, now plays tough on the border after trying, and failing to get the Trans Texas Corridor built to help facilitate even more flooding of North America with Chinese goods via Mexican ports (bypassing US ports).

Aside from calling special sessions of the legislature the governor here in TX doesn't have much actual power. Giving Perry, or any other politican credit for the TX economy is like giving a fisherman credit for the tides because he has a boat and lives by the sea.

The TX economy is what it is because state government is held in check by a strict state Constitution, that is to say, despite, not because of the politicians.

As much as Ron Radosh likes Rick Perry, I think he would like LBJ even better, especially his foreign policy. LBJ was certainly no isolationist that's for sure! In fact, if Rick Perry started reading old LBJ speeches, just changing a name here and there to bring the specifics up to date, I think he would fall in love with him. And if Rick Perry also started reading old Woodrow Wilson speeches, just changing a name here and there to bring the specifics up to date, I think he would probably propose.

LBJ would have beeb better off an isolationist, because he lacked the mindset for any warfighting. Why did Vietnam last so long? Because we met them tit for tat. We bombed their cities, and then let up on them to try to woo them into peace talks. He wanted to fight 'fair' and treat them as children rather than enemies that killed tens of thousands of our sons.

LBJ refused another term, Nixon was elected. Nixon's policy was "the bombings will continue until your attitude improves". The Paris peace accords were signed shortly after.

Perry at least has the proper disposition for war-making. Not the "measured response" crap that made us bleed the last generation out in an unending war.

I love my country, and I'm glad that we are militarily strong, but our record with regard to interventions is pretty terrible. I know the Vietnam war was basically won and then Congress defunded the South. I know Korea wasn't won because the UN was in the mix and we were timid. I know history, and history states that we are a bad imperial power.

The Monroe doctrine makes sense. A powerful Navy makes sense, we are a maritime nation. We should defend the canals, the major trading infrastructure, pull our troops mostly out of Europe, but stay in NATO and our major alliances, but for god sake, we need to actually be a free country before we try to free anyone else.

Also, Rick Perry is George W. Bush MII only intellectually vacant. He couldn't remember the two cabinet departments he wanted to abolish. This means, with absolute certainty, that this wasn't his idea. Given that this was a major debate, that means he's an empty suit. QED.

If you don't like Rand Paul on Foreign Policy, fine, but there are better candidates than Perry.

Perry is the successful governor of one of the most economically successful states in the US and a former USAF pilot. Thus he has a record of making good decisions under high pressure. What has Rand Paul ever run? Feel free to compare your own resume to Perry's.

BTW, are you aware that we only have two or three brigades deployed to NATO?

Seriously? I live in Texas and my family is pretty deep in Texas politics. He's an empty shirt. Abbott will be a hell of a lot better. Perry deserves credit for doing what he's told by a number of very skilled advisors and members if the legislature, as well as heavyweights like Abbott and Combs. Again, he couldn't remember them name,a of two departments he supposedly wanted to abolish...

"the successful governor of one of the most economically successful states "

Oh, get off it. The governor in Texas is almost ceremonial. He has very little actual power. Perry doesn't deserve the credit for the economy in Texas any more than Clinton deserves the credit for the U.S. economy during his terms.

Islam is the problem. We didn't create Islam and the problem isn't going away regardless if Paul or Perry get to the White House. It seems that both have no idea of the revival of this 7th century vicious political ideology. Both are unqualified to be President. You can't create a viable strategy if you don't understand how the enemy thinks.

I am not a fan of Paul.I think he's been seduced by the power of the pink side. He is wrong on immigration, and I don't trust him on Israel.

That said, I think, Ron, it is you who are building a straw man.Not wanting to send troops to Iraq or Syria does not an isolationist make.

The question is: What are the goals of your proposed involvement?If it is to destroy AQ, ISIS, Hizballah, etc., and get out, it's one thing, and this approach deserves to be tried. Finally.If it is to help one bunch of anti-American, anti-Semitic scum fight another bunch of anti-American, anti-Semitic scum, the way Obama and McCain want it, then it's different, and I am against it.If it is to liberate a bunch of savages from themselves and build them a Jeffersonian Democracy, then sorry, Ron, you and Bush-2 are not getting my vote for this either.

What are Rand Paul's goals?Sending supplies and intelligence to help prop up the current Iraqi government?It looks like you are rejecting that out of hand. How then can you support Rand Paul's position?

You are correct, not wanting to send troops to Iraq or Syria does not an isolationist make.And you are correct, helping one bunch of anti-American, anti-Semitic scum fight another bunch of anti-American, anti-Semitic scum, the way Obama, McCain, AND Paul want it, is different, and I am against it.More, as I have pointed out in the past, history is quite clear what will happen with the various levels of intervention. They are:

1. Go in and win, creating a new country in the process. This will require at least a 50 year occupation, probably more, and will cost a few thousand lives to begin with plus an ongoing yearly toll.

2. Go in, eliminate the current problem, then leave. Which . . . is why we have the current problem.

3. Send materiel and intelligence aid until the side we theoretically favor wins then wash our hands of it even if someone else intervenes. Which, in case nobody is keeping score, is why we have the current problem in Afghanistan.

4. Whine, complain, and make a big stink about it. Which is what we have been doing in Syria and which has resulted in their civil war intensifying contributing to the current problem.

5. Ignore it completely. A few thousand will die, in an extreme case a new dictator will take over, and . . . everything will quiet down for another 25 years or so. There is of course a slight chance a complete and utter maniac will take over and we will get to do WWII all over again but someone else will have to deal with that so who cares.

Me, I prefer Option 1.In lieu of that, Option 5 is the best of what is left - at least until I am too old to really have to worry about or be affected by it.As for people who prefer Options 2-4 . . .

I don't really know what Paul's goals are. Since I don't support him for an executive office, I am not particularly interested, to tell you the truth.You must have misunderstood me: I wasn't supporting Paul's position in my comment, I was taking issue with Mr. Radosh's strawman.

I am not rejecting sending supplies or intelligence. That is not what I would consider "military involvement", which is what I believe this whole discussion is about. I would argue that we need to be more careful when it comes to what we send to whom, but no, I don't reject it out of hand. Again, you must have misunderstood me.

As to your options:

1) I don't think you listed all the important pieces to that equation.1a) > Go in and winNothing good will happen unless an enemy is defeated first. As in "admitted defeat, signed an unconditional capitulation and is in a hurry to write a pacifist constitution". None of the "winning hearts and minds" stuff until they have admitted defeat. Then, and only then we can start our 50 year occupation, complete with a local version of denazification, indoctrination in schools, and the rest of it.1b) > creating a new country in the processWhat country? The notion of a nation state is a rather artificial construct over there. Unless I am severely mistaken, it's a tribal society, not a nationalistic one. The borders have mostly been artificially created by the Brits and the French, and the inhabitants mostly hate each other and themselves. It reminds me more of ever shifting barbarian landscapes in the era of the Fall of Rome, than of European nation-states of the XX century. In both Germany and Japan we had well developed countries with well developed cultures and centuries of unifying nationalistic and behavioral traditions. What do we have in the Arab world to build upon? If it wasn't for oil, they'd still be fighting each other on camel back, and it's not like their oil windfall changed them very much.I am just not sure that it is even possible to do in what we call (geographically if not politically) Iraq or Syria, what we did in Germany and Japan.

Which is why sometimes your #2 is the only thing we can do. How many times and how many powerful empires tried to build something decent or at least less dangerous out of Afghanistan? Sometimes getting in, eliminating the problem we can't ignore, and leaving them to pick up the rubble is the only sensible course of action. Yes, it will probably grow back to be a problem, but it might just do that anyway, so why waste American lives and resources on a Sisyphean task?

3. I agree, it's useless, especially with the savages on both ends of currently discussed conflicts

4. Just look how great it works for the Golfer in Chief!

5. Painful as it sounds, I agree that sometimes it's a prudent choice to make.

"Setting up a strawman and sounding like John Kerry during the Vietnam War in his testimony before Congress ... "

"The [Vietnam] war was only made possible through lies and deceptions aimed at the American public, Congress, and members of Lyndon Johnson’s own administration. Contrary to Robert McNamara’s claims of ignorance and overconfidence during the period 1963-1965, the record proves that he and others were men who not only should have known better, but who did know better. These men and the decisions they made during those crucial months mired the United States in a costly war that could not be won at a cost acceptable to the American public" - H.R. McMaster

"Of course, Perry also opposes sending U.S. troops back to Iraq. No one advocates that, although some do argue for a small group to protect the government and to continue the training of anti-ISIS forces. Setting up a strawman ..."

There are quite a number who say, and keep saying, we should have kept around 10,000 American troops in Iraq. It's not any leap at all to "evolve" back to that wish if given the power to do so.

And pray tell, how would a small group of American troops protect Iraq's Shiite government with any certainty and how many could be killed trying?

IMHO, you are quite right that the US should have remained in Iraq It was the ultimate "key terrain" in the war against radical Islam-ists, equivalent to the center four squares of the chess board.

• geographic center of Muslim world• border of Sunni/Shia and Arab/Persian worlds• geographic top of the Persian Gulf• energy producing and refining center• in many ways, the historical center of the Arab world• excellent weather and roads facilitates military logistics

And President BHO dropped this for a short faux-surge into Afghanistan?

"Setting up a strawman and sounding like John Kerry during the Vietnam War in his testimony before Congress, Paul asks: “How many Americans should send their sons or daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves?”

So do you think Ronald Reagan would want to send American sons and daughters to die for a foreign country — a nation the Iraqis won’t defend for themselves? Ronald Reagan said "The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest" so are you going to call him John Kerry too?

To die to keep the Caliphate from spreading and waging war on the world, including the U.S.?Well, I'd prefer they made the forces of the Caliphate die instead, but if the only option is Americans dying to achieve that goal, then yes.

Iraq is not the center of the universe. Nether is Afcrapistan. Nor Syria. Nor Libya. Nor whatever other muslim country McCainiacs want, or will want, American troops in fighting and dying and losing limbs in against some muslims for some other muslims. And all the while our so called southern border is all but wide open.

Actually, since the mostly Shia, pro-Iran government of Iraq supports the "Shia-lite" government of Syria, including sending Asab Al'Haq, the Shia Iraqi terrorist-militia group to fight in Syria on behalf of the Assad government, I doubt they'd pass on weapons to the Sunni rebels of Syria.